bims-librar Biomed news
on Biomedical librarianship
Issue of 2018‒09‒02
five papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society


  1. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Aug 06. pii: S1748-6815(18)30265-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Manley L, Ghezzi P.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.07.023
  2. World Neurosurg. 2018 Aug 22. pii: S1878-8750(18)31858-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    Karsy M, Azab MA, Guan J, Couldwell WT, Rolston JD.
      BACKGROUND: The use of bibliometrics to evaluate authors, institutions, and journals faces significant challenges in comparing biomedical specialties because of marked differences among fields. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of specialty field and physician numbers on bibliometric parameters.METHODS: For this bibliometric analysis, data from MDLinx.com and SCImago Journal & Country Rank for 2016 were used to rank the journals. The 2015 Physician Specialty Data Report provided the number of specialists in specific fields. We assessed the means for bibliometric parameters across medical and surgical specialties.
    RESULTS: A total of 904 journals within 25 medical and surgical specialties were identified. Medical specialties had higher average journal total citations than surgical specialty journals (8360±16082 vs. 6217±8743, p=0.01). Medical specialties with the highest impact factor were oncology (7.8±20.7), psychiatry (4.6±4.0), and neurology (4.4±4.1), while surgical specialties were led by urology (2.9±3.3), cardiothoracic surgery (2.9±2.7), and general surgery (2.6±1.7). Impact factor and Eigenfactor Score (a measure of both journal citations and caliber) were strongly correlated (r=0.84, p=0.0001). Comparison of impact factor per total physicians in the specialty suggested that top-ranked specialty journals were in allergy/immunology, pulmonology, and cardiothoracic surgery. Mean Eigenfactor Score per total physicians showed that top journals were in cardiothoracic surgery, rheumatology, and pulmonary medicine.
    CONCLUSIONS: Journal bibliometrics, which may strongly influence professional advancement and grant funding, show dramatic differences in ranking after accounting for specialty and physician population. Improved analysis and understanding of available bibliometrics, including their limitations, is necessary to appreciate their role in measuring scholarship.
    Keywords:  Eigenfactor Score; bibliometrics; impact factor; journal networks; subspecialty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.075
  3. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Sep;pii: S0196-0644(18)30654-1. [Epub ahead of print]72(3): 235-236
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.07.022
  4. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Aug 23. pii: S1198-743X(18)30577-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Scudeller L, Rodríguez-Baño J, Zinkernagel A, Tacconelli E, Akova M, Friedrich AW, Sanguinetti M, Paul M, Poljak M.
      BACKGROUND AND AIM: The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) aims at further developing its role in international medical and scientific guidance in the field of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, where many types of guidance documents exist. The ESCMID Executive Committee (EC) and Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) editorial board wish to clarify the terminology and format to be used in ESCMID guidance documents submitted for publication in CMI, and to highlight the principles behind ESCMID guidance documents.TYPES OF GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS: There are five types of ESCMID guidance documents: White papers, Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), Consensus Statements, State-of-the-science Statements, and Position papers. They differ in scope, methods of development, drafting group composition, and preferred publication format. Guidance documents can be proposed, developed and published by ESCMID Study Groups, Committees and individual members; often, other scientific societies are involved. The full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (CoI) of all drafting group members is a requirement.
    FINAL REMARKS: Guidance documents constitute common cultural and scientific background to people in the same and related professions. Also, they are an important educational and training tool. Developing a guidance document is a scientific endeavour, where a sound and transparent development process is needed, requiring multidisciplinary and personal skills.
    Keywords:  Guidelines; consensus methods; consensus statements; position paper; state-of-the-art
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2018.08.005
  5. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Aug 18. pii: S0260-6917(18)30416-7. [Epub ahead of print]70 40-46
    Osborne DM, Byrne JH, Massey DL, Johnston ANB.
      BACKGROUND: The ongoing challenges of managing large student enrolments and increasing demand from students for online learning platforms and teaching strategies has helped drive tertiary implementation of asynchronous online discussion boards (AOD). However, supporting and assessing students in such a forum remains contentious.METHODS: This explorative, mixed methods study examined and evaluated the usage and perceptions of a unique form of AOD used in a postgraduate nursing course. Student survey and semi-structured interviews with staff (n = 3) were used to explore the structures, processes and outcomes of inclusion of an AOD in this online course. Triangulation of themes emerging from the staff interviews, survey outcomes, and student free text responses enabled appraisal of AOD, focusing primarily on its contribution to course content and assessment.
    RESULTS: Students' survey responses (approx. 24% of the cohort; n = 34) were largely positive. Themes that arose from the qualitative data included i) AOD to build a sense of student community, ii) AOD to encourage interaction with and deliberation of course content, iii) stimuli and challenges around assessing the discussion board, and iv) easy to use IT interface made it a more positive experience. Student responses suggested that scaffolding, feedback and sufficient time allocation were required. Many factors impacted on student interaction with the AOD, including a lack of time due to paid work and other coursework and assessments.
    DISCUSSION: Overall, staff and students reported the assessed AOD was a positive course component. It encouraged engagement with staff, other students and the subtleties of complex course content, critical appraisal and discussion of evidence, and application to clinical practice. Exemplars and explicit marking criteria setting out the need for informed contributions were considered crucial by all stakeholders.
    Keywords:  AOD; Assessment; Asynchronous; Critical thinking; Discussion board
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.014